It's the JOURNEY, Stupid!
-
OK olegt tells us:
AND on the journey down the number line a train picking up all non-negative integers will always have twice as many numbers as a train picking up all positive even numbers (going down the same number line). And that is always and forever-> meaning for the entire journey.
And that is why it's a good thing that numbers don't have any mass...
OK olegt tells us:
Joe’s main difficulty with the concept of infinity is a failure to realize that infinity is a journey, not a destination.Yet my Einstein train blog makes it obvioulsy clear that I know that it is all about the journey. And by the way they keep saying "well it's infinity!" says that they are just looking at infinity as a destination.
AND on the journey down the number line a train picking up all non-negative integers will always have twice as many numbers as a train picking up all positive even numbers (going down the same number line). And that is always and forever-> meaning for the entire journey.
And that is why it's a good thing that numbers don't have any mass...
posted by Joe G @ 12:08 PM
33 Comments:
At 4:23 PM,
Unknown said…
"Yet my Einstein train blog makes it obvioulsy clear that I know that it is all about the journey. And by the way they keep saying "well it's infinity!" says that they are just looking at infinity as a destination."
Nope, that's the point. Infinity isn't a destination. You don't 'get' there.
"AND on the journey down the number line a train picking up all non-negative integers will always have twice as many numbers as a train picking up all positive even numbers (going down the same number line). And that is always and forever-> meaning for the entire journey."
Not if the train picking up the even integers travels twice as fast! :-) And because you never stop.
Welcome to the infinite.
At 4:59 PM,
Joe G said…
Nope, that's the point. Infinity isn't a destination. You don't 'get' there.
I know. That is what I said.
Not if the train picking up the even integers travels twice as fast!
No, you don't get to change the rules- all is equal.
At 5:09 PM,
Unknown said…
"No, you don't get to change the rules- all is equal."
Of course you get to change the rules! Otherwise we'd still be counting sheep by making marks on a stick.
There was a HUGE controversy when the first irrational number was 'discovered'. It was argued against, dismissed, ignored. But now we think of it as obvious and basic.
Imaginary numbers? WTF? Who thought of that? But now they are used in physics applications.
In mathematics you get to ask any questions you like. The sky's the limit.
At 5:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Of course you get to change the rules!
Great, then the first train just passed the second train and has left it in the dust. And it is picking up all integers on both lines!
There ya go, you lose again.
At 2:01 AM,
Unknown said…
" 'Of course you get to change the rules!'
Great, then the first train just passed the second train and has left it in the dust. And it is picking up all integers on both lines!
There ya go, you lose again."
I don't think I have. You're just giving up trying to make a coherent argument.
Besides, what is the cardinality of the set of positive integers unioned with the positive even integers?
At 7:15 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! YOU don't even have an argument.
At 8:05 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! YOU don't even have an argument."
Whatever makes you happy. I like being correct more than I like winning.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Me too.
At 1:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Then why do you paint yourself into corners taking indefensible positions to support obviously stupid shit you've said?
At 1:39 PM,
Joe G said…
The journey says that I am correct and my claim is defended.
At 1:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You keep asserting that things "say / prove you are correct" when they do nothing of the sort. Basic logic escapes you, it's no wonder you get some many other things wrong.
At 1:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie,
I see that you are still too much of a coward to actually make a case and you think that somehow makes your case.
You, Richie, are what we call not even wrong
At 1:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"We"? Who's "We" - You and Jim JohnPaul? LOL@Chubs!
At 2:03 PM,
Joe G said…
We, the people with an IQ over 90, ie the people less likely to accept evolutionism.
At 2:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
There you go again, you just can't help yourself, chubs!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013
Make-shit-up-as-i-go-along-Gallien
Laughing stock of the internet.
At 2:24 PM,
Joe G said…
That doesn't address what I said, Richie.
Try again...
At 2:30 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What is your understanding of "evolutionism", Joe. As you make shit up, you should probably be explicit. Then we'll go and find IQ data on the subset... and I bet (although based on your $10k I know more about nested hierarchies disgrace but I'm too chickenshit to pick living authorities to judge, it wont be a cash bet with you) that their IQ > 90, and you've been caught making shit up (again).
At 2:59 PM,
Joe G said…
My understanding of evolutionism comes from Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Carroll, Shubin, Coyne-
The untestable claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes.
Dawkins called it the blind watchmaker thesis.
Really Richie, I've only been blogging about that for 7 years. What the fuck is wrong with you?
And for all the alleged brainiacs that say the accept it, they have to provide a testable hypothesis or they drop to an IQ of zero.
But anyway, coward, enough of your pussy-little distractions...
At 3:02 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL - and there you go making things up again. "the untestable claim" - are you going for the time honored 'where you there?' creationist trope?
Your blog is so poor written, incoherent and incorrect that I doubt any of its vast readership recall your arbitrary, personal, made-up definitions.
At 3:08 PM,
Joe G said…
And more cowardly false accusations.
And your jealousy is duly noted- Richie too much of a coward to have his own blog because he is too much of a coward to actually say something.
Please provide evidence for my alleged arbitrary, personal, made-up definitions.
Or admit that you are a piece-of-shit liar.
At 3:12 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL - more making things up. Why would I be jealous of you, Chubs? I participate freely in science oriented forums. You get yourself banned by posting porn. Your blog is a tragic shrine to your idiocy.
You have to prove your definitions are supported and accepted by others,not me, chubs.
Keep on failing and flailing - if you try twice as hard you might get to infinity in half the time ;-)
At 3:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Richie,
Your "participation" is never wrt science, unless you are just exposing your ignorance of it.
Also I have never posted anywhere. You are a liar.
What definitions do I have to prove, Richie? The definitions I take from standard dictionaries? The definitions I get from evolutionary biologists?
All you do is prove that you are a coward every time you accuse me of something and fail to provide any evidence or specifics.
You are flailing all the way to infinity. And apparently proud of it.
At 3:26 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The untestable claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes."
Go find others who use that, LardTard.
"Also I have never posted anywhere. You are a liar." - said the worlds greatest tard, in a post.
At 3:32 PM,
Joe G said…
So there isn't any universal common ancestry?
Or the first organisms were not prokaryotic-like?
Or accumulations of genetic/ accidents/ errors/ mistakes is not the proposed mechanism?
Please tell me which one is incorrect. I dare you.
And you are by far the greatest tard, Richie "I invented cupcake and BWAAAAHAAAHAAA" Hughes.
At 3:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOLchubs.
I never claimed to invented cupcake, but you went and changed an old pots to pretend you used it before me. How sad is that? Really? Think about it. And because you're too stupid to know how the Internet works, you got caught. Typical Joe, gets caught lying.
Haven't found anyone else who uses "The untestable claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes." yet? what a shock!
At 3:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Well, Richie, if you weren't so fucking ignorant, you would know that is what evolutionism claims- that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes.
Dawkins wrote about, as have others.
And as for arbitrary definitions, you definitely redefine porn to suit your simple-minded needs.
At 3:44 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I didn't know Joetard's definition until you gave it; that one that is unique to you, Bullshitter Joe.
Why not ask your chum KF if that was porn? Oh right, because you know it is, and so does he, and he'll put you in your place (again).
Such a fucking wimp.
At 3:45 PM,
Joe G said…
Evolutionism claims:
Universal Common Ancestry- Darwin on up to and beyond Theobald
Prokaryotes or something like proks started it- Darwin and up the tree of life
accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes- Darwin and up the tree.
So what's the problem, Richie?
At 3:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Aw bless, chubs is still making his own terms up! Who shares
"The untestable claim that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of prokaryotic-like organisms via accumulations of genetic accidents/ errors/ mistakes."
Chubs? Whole cloth, please, or it's JOETARDS definition.
At 3:49 PM,
Joe G said…
I didn't know Joetard's definition until you gave it; that one that is unique to you, Bullshitter Joe.
I doubt that. All anyone has to do is read the literature and that definition flows right out.
For example, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
And why do I have to ask KF? I can read a dictionary. OTOH you have issues with dictionaries and have to make up your own definition.
At 3:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, Richie, I get it. You are too stupid to be able to put things together and you think that I am bad because I can.
Again Richie, what part of the definition do you disagree with?
Why are you too much of a coward to answer that question?
At 3:54 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Have you shown your picture to KF yet? Then who's the coward, parking lot Joe?
As for evolutionism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
At 4:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Why would I show the picture to KF? Only little faggots want to drag other people into this. why is that?
Why do you feel the need to redefine porn to suit your simple-minded needs?
And what is it about that link that you think means something?
Why are you too much of a coward to actually make a case?
Why are you too much of a coward to answer my questions?
Post a Comment
<< Home